Studia bot. hung. 35, pp. 91–149, 2004 ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF HUNGARIAN BRYOPHYTES P. ERZBERGER1 and B. PAPP2 1Belziger Str. 37, D-10823 Berlin, Germany; E-mail: [email protected] 2Department of Botany, Hungarian Natural History Museum H-1476 Budapest, Pf. 222, Hungary; E-mail: [email protected] The checklist presented below contains 629 bryophyte taxa in 199 genera, 2 species of hornworts in 2 genera, 141 species and 2 additional subspecies of liverworts in 50 genera and 483 species and 1 addi- tional subspecies of mosses in 147 genera. It is the first inventory of Hungarian bryophytes in twenty years. Not all problems resulting from changes in taxonomy could be resolved yet, but the fields where further research is necessary are pointed out. Separate lists of excluded (46), doubtful (42) and recently added taxa (30) are provided. The annotations comment on taxonomic and nomenclatural changes, quote specimen details or contain otherwise relevant information. Key words: bryophytes, checklist, Hungary INTRODUCTION This is the first attempt to prepare an up-dated checklist of all bryophyte taxa of Hungary, more than twenty years after the publication of the “Handbook of the Hungarian Bryoflora” (ORBÁN and VAJDA 1983). Since then, partly as a result of fieldwork and partly resulting from herbarium revision, several new species have been added to the Hungarian bryoflora. Other taxa, some reported in ORBÁN and VAJDA (1983) and many in numerous other papers as occurring in Hungary, are now considered to be absent from Hungary, due to the application of better de- scriptions of taxa or to the amendment of various errors, especially with respect to geography. The species concerned are listed in the appendices. A considerable number of taxonomic and nomenclatural changes have accumulated within the last two decades, and thus the need to replace the somewhat out-of-date ORBÁN and VAJDA (1983) by a modern checklist has been increasingly felt. The application of national and international legislation with respect to the conservation of nature must be founded on an inventory of species that reflects the present state. This kind of inventory is also a prerequisite for the preparation of a red data book of bryophytes satisfying modern criteria (IUCN 1994). One of the most serious problems of an up-dated treatment of Hungarian bryophyte taxa lies in the difficulties of interpretation of old reports, in cases when the concepts of taxa have changed in the meantime. This concerns a considerable proportion of the Hungarian bryoflora. On the other hand, Hungarian bryology, fortunately, is in possession of a large body of herbarium specimens collected by Studia Botanica Hungarica 35, 2004 Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest 92 ERZBERGER, P. and PAPP, B. BOROS and VAJDA during long decades of the last century, and now to a large part housed in the bryophyte collections of Budapest (BP), Eger (EGR) and Szom- bathely (SZO), with vouchers for almost every one of the records published by these two outstanding personalities of Hungarian 20th century bryology. In princi- ple, therefore, the problems due to progress in taxonomy can be overcome by her- barium revision. However, only few genera or species groups have been studied in this respect up to now (e.g. Tortula Sect. Rurales:TÓTH (1986, 1987), Barbula, Didymodon:GALAMBOS (1992), Grimmia:MAIER,PAPP and ERZBERGER, unpubl., Hedwigia, Dicranum tauricum / viride, Ditrichum crispatissimum / flexicaule, Funaria muhlenbergii / pulchella:ERZBERGER (1996, 1999, 2001, 2002), Pohlia Sect. Pohliella:ERZBERGER (in press), Sphagnum:SZURDOKI (2003)). Especially some large and/or difficult genera like Bryum, Racomitrium and Schistidium are in bad need of revision, and our results with respect to these are far from definite. For- tunately, on the other hand, Hungarian specimens have been included in world- wide or European revisions of some genera, e.g. Aloina (DELGADILLO 1975), Grim- mia (MUÑOZ and PANDO 2000), Schistidium (BLOM 1996), Seligeria (GOS and OCHYRA 1994) and the species of the Calliergon-Scorpidium-Drepanocladus complex (HEDENÄS 2003). This means a substantial contribution to the solution of the problems outlined above. In order to facilitate future research and as a first step towards a specimen- based Hungarian flora, we quote specimen details (herbarium, inventory number, locality, date and collector) for virtually all taxa that are known from a single local- ity or a few sites only. The taxonomy of hornworts and liverworts follows the recently published checklists of GROLLE and LONG (2000) and SÖDERSTRÖM et al. (2002). For mosses, no comparable comprehensive modern taxonomic treatment is available, therefore, in general, we follow CORLEY et al. (1981) and CORLEY and CRUND- WELL (1991), with the exception of some genera listed below together with the publications on which we rely (Table 1). We have not adopted the more radical changes proposed by ZANDER (1993) in Pottiaceae and HEDENÄS (2003) in Am- blystegiaceae and other pleurocarpous mosses, because, contrary to BLOCKEEL and LONG (1998), we feel that perhaps more research is needed to corroborate these concepts. In the interest of nomenclatural stability, we rather followed the more moderate amendments of nomenclature published in several German refer- ence works (LUDWIG et al. 1996, KOPERSKI et al. 2000, NEBEL and PHILIPPI 2000, 2001). For the preparation of the checklist, published reports on the occurrence of taxa in Hungary were evaluated from the following main sources, with critical ref- erence to specimens where appropriate: BOROS (1968), ORBÁN and VAJDA Studia bot. hung. 35, 2004 ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF HUNGARIAN BRYOPHYTES 93 Table 1. Taxonomic references for some moss genera. Aloina DELGADILLO (1975) Bryum HODGETTS (2001) Dichodontium WERNER (2002) Ditrichum FRISVOLL (1985), ERZBERGER (2001) Drepanocladus aduncus group HEDENÄS (2003) Grimmia GREVEN (1995), MAIER (2002a, b), MAIER and GEISSLER (1995), MUÑOZ (1998a, b), MUÑOZ and PANDO (2000) Mnium KOPONEN (1994) Orthotrichum LEWINSKY (1993), LEWINSKY-HAAPASAARI (1998), LUDWIG et al. (1996), MAZIMPAKA et al. (2000), VITT (1973) Plagiothecium MASTRACCI and SAUER (2001) Pterygoneurum CANO et al. (1994), FREY et al. (1990), PÓCS (1999), SEGARRA et al. (1998) Racomitrium FRISVOLL (1983), BEDNAREK-OCHYRA (1995) Schistidium BLOM (1996, 1998) Tortula NEBEL and HEINRICHS (2000), TÓTH (1986, 1987), WERNER and HÉBRARD (1986) Ulota SMITH and PROCTOR (1993), ERZBERGER (2003) (1983), DÜLL (1983, 1984, 1985, 1992), SÖDERSTRÖM et al. (2002). Numerous smaller papers with floristical data on Hungarian bryophytes were evaluated as well and are referenced in the annotations. We have compiled species and – in a few cases – subspecies of bryophytes, but not varieties. Nevertheless, nearly all reports on varieties in BOROS (1968) and ORBÁN and VAJDA (1983) and some other sources are referenced in the annota- tions. Each entry begins with the accepted name of the taxon (in bold face), and au- thorities in standardised abbreviations (BRUMMIT and POWELL 1992). In brackets follow synonyms, if any. In general, only the most important synonyms are given, to facilitate the use of current bryological works. If names in ORBÁN and VAJDA (1983) and BOROS (1968) differ from the accepted name in this checklist, these differing names are always the first synonyms given. In some cases, additional synonyms used in English and German floras (e.g.SMITH 1978, 1990, FRAHM and FREY 1992, FREY et al. 1995) or even in taxonomic treatments that might become influential in the future (e.g.HEDENÄS 2003, ZANDER 1993) are included to facili- tate the use of the checklist. It must be emphasised that synonyms are listed here Studia bot. hung. 35, 2004 94 ERZBERGER, P. and PAPP, B. for practical purposes; they may not comply with the rules of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (GREUTER et al. 2000), and in some but not all cases this is stated in a note. Annotations highlight nomenclatural, taxonomic or other questions of interest and quote the literature. We treat the three groups of bryophytes: Anthocerotae, Hepaticae and Musci separately. After the main list – i.e. the checklist proper – we have compiled some separate lists. Appendix 1 contains the taxa excluded from the Hungarian flora (7 hep., 39 musc.), because some kind of error could be clearly demonstrated. Appen- dix 2 is a list of doubtful species (1 hep., 29 musc.) not included in the main list, be- cause we feel that their inclusion would probably be erroneous, but evidence for this is less clear than for the excluded taxa in App. 1, e.g. doubtful taxa are included here, if no specimen could be located. Taxa in Apps 1 and 2 that appeared in ORBÁN and VAJDA (1983) are marked with an asterisk (3 hep., 16 musc.). Appen- dix 3 contains taxa that are less doubtful, where our reservations do not warrant ex- clusion from the main list (6 hep., 6 musc.). We are confident that a large propor- tion of these taxa is in fact a member of the Hungarian bryoflora. To facilitate com- parison with ORBÁN and VAJDA (1983), in Appendix 4 a list of taxa recorded after 1983 is provided (2 hep., 28 musc.). App. 5 is a table of useful synonyms. The deci- sion to place particular taxa in any one of these lists is based on the evidence avail- able at the time of compilation. It is hoped that in a later edition of the checklist these problems will be solved due to progress in herbarium and field research. * * * Acknowledgements – We thank the directors and curators of the following herbaria for the ar- rangement of loans of specimens: B, EGR, JE, SZO. We are especially grateful to E. MAIER, Geneva, for revising a large number of Grimmia specimens, to J. KLAWITTER, Berlin, J. KUČERA, České Budejovice and TH.HOMM,ELSFLETH, for the revision of some specimens, and to L. BALOGH,T. PÓCS and E. SZURDOKI for valuable comments. Part of this work was supported by the Institute of Environmental Management, Hungary.